Juan Cole: Those aren't al Qaeda in Iraq, they're Salafist jihadis!
By Charles Bird Posted in War — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In his post last Sunday, Professor Juan Cole was talking down the influence of al Qaeda in Iraq, remarking on an article in the LA Times on the foreign "fighters" in custody and the high percentage of whom are Saudis:
Ned Parker of the LA Times reports that of 19,000 "insurgents" held by the US military in Iraq, only 135 are foreigners.
Ned Parker never said a word about 19,000 "insurgents". I challenged Dr. Cole on this in his comments section and, because he only publishes comments that he approves of, mine didn't appear. But the next day, he made a linked reference to 19,000 detainees who are held by MNF-Iraq, without correcting his prior false entry. But all that is small potatoes next to his larger thesis that al Qaeda and its foreign "fighters" are no big deal in Iraq:
Read on . . .
All these statistics that are coming out completely undermine the discourse in Washington, DC, about the war. The Iranian and Syrian governments are not the problem. Osama Bin Laden is not the problem. Sunni Arabs, mainly Iraqis, objecting to American and Shiite and Kurdish dominance is the problem.
While it's true that foreign detainees are miniscule, and while it's also true that foreign al Qaeda fighters are a smallish group, the damage they levy is disproportionate to their numbers. This may earn me a Karnak Award, but following Cole's reasoning, if Qaeda has a miniscule influence, then there's no real point in having our troops in Iraq. The country is in the middle of a civil war, and the real al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We should just redeploy our troops (or cut and run, to be more accurate) and let Iraq sort itself out. I could be wrong about his thinking, but he won't answer my comments, let alone publish them, so he himself has opened the door to interpretation.
As I see it, Professor Cole is mischaracterizing the situation and he's mischaracterizing the influence of al Qaeda in Iraq. Doing the math, there were 250± suicide bombers who initiated attacks in the first six months of this year (cite), and suicide bombings are the trademark of al Qaeda and its affiliates. We also know that around 90% of those bombers are foreign-born. What's more, there is no evidence of Shiite suicide bombers in Iraq. The bombings are pretty much the province of foreign-born Sunni terrorists. If General Odierno's numbers are accurate (60 to 80 foreign terrorists entering Iraq per month, so let's call it 70), there is only a net addition of 30 foreigners per month available for capture.
What we don't know is, of those 30 new terrorists every month, how many of them have been killed in combat over the months and years or how many went back home (perhaps after realizing that they're nothing more than cannon fodder). Also, it wouldn't be a surprise if some of those 19,000 captured weren't classified as foreigners to begin with. After all, it's not like these foreigners would be motivated to bring their passports along with them.
So while it may fit Dr. Cole's preconceived notions that "Sunni Arabs" (and not al Qaeda) are the "main problem", the facts don't square. Extremist paramilitant groups, both Shiite and Sunni, are mainly responsible for American deaths (not al Qaeda) and the hardline Mahdi mafia is mainly responsible for sectarian killings in Baghdad. Nevertheless, the role of al Qaeda (and its foreign "fighters") is significant, just by dint of suicide bombings alone. So it makes me wonder: Does Dr. Cole think General Petraeus is ignorant or lying when he says that al Qaeda is public enemy #1 in Iraq? The general's education, training and access to intelligence do not bespeak of ignorance, so he must be lying, no?
Also questionable is Dr. Cole's contention that Sunni Arabs are "main problem". What about Anbar? The place is wall-to-wall Sunni, and most of the shieks there have turned away from al Qaeda and have joined the coalition. The same is happening in Diyala. As it is, Cole is being misleading by downtalking of role of al Qaeda, and his narrative falsely merges suicide bombings with other forms of violence, portraying the situation as a whole as One Big Unsolvable Civil War. The unmentioned fact is that al Qaeda & Co. are trying to stoke a civil war, using suicide bombers as their primary means. The February 2006 Golden Mosque bombing helped trigger it.
Oh, and here's another attempt by Cole to minimize the al Qaeda role:
"Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is of course just a bogeyman phrase to describe Salafi Jihadis there. But they obviously feel some kinship to the real al-Qaeda (you never want to see that) and they are threatening to get up an attack on the United States. There was no al-Qaeda in Saddam`s Iraq, so it is Bush who has created this current threat, which did not have to be there.
Of course, the US Right will conveniently use the small "al-Qaeda in Iraq" organization, which it more or less created by its militarism, to justify more militarism. But I don`t think the American public is that stupid.
And what exactly are bin Laden and al Zawahiri if not "Salafi jihadis"? Which al Qaeda members aren't jihadists with a neo-Salafi ideology? Cole is factually wrong when he says that there was no al Qaeda in Saddam's Iraq. He is also wrong in stating as facts that Bush created this threat. Al Qaeda made Iraq the "central front" in its war, so implying that al Qaeda had no choice but to enter Iraq is spurious reasoning. Bush does deserve criticism because the poor post-war security situation opened the door for insurgents and terrorists to enter, but the creator of the current threat goes to the ones actually doing the threatening. Finally, Cole really goes off the deep end, implying that any of the American public who doesn't agree with him is stupid.
Backdropping all of this is today's news of al Mashandani's capture. He was the highest ranking Iraqi in al Qaeda leadership. The bizarre part of the story is that the Islamic State of Iraq is a phony baloney organization and is leader, al Baghdadi, is a fictional character. The real leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq are foreigners, and Iraqis make up the rank and file. But according to Juan Cole, those foreigners don't make a dime's worth of difference. But the vital question is this, why would these foreign-born leaders try to make al Qaeda look homegrown? The answer should be obvious to anyone who's mind hasn't clammed shut. In a prior post, Bill Roggio lays out who the different enemies are. Al Qaeda isn't the only bad guy, but public enemy #1 does seem to fit the bill.
and while those 52 senators raised the white flag, what if Speaker Rayburn sent a bill to FDR that cut off all funding for the war in Europe if we didnt win by June 5, 1944, then hopped a govt plane for Japan to make nice with Hirohito? What would have been the Speaker's fate?
Professor (yes I'm being facetious) Juan Cole is just another leftist, antisemitic, conspiracy mongering, anti-American professor of "Middle Eastern Studies" at that bastion of liberal-think, the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Bet you're suprised! As your post points out (and link to the L.A. Times demonstrates), he has no compunction about fabricating facts out of thin air.
Cole and many of his fellow travelers in our universities certainly make a compelling case against tenure.
For more on who Juan cole is see:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1782
I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly.
Michel de Montaigne
It is pretty obvious by how badly the DOD and war planners bungled the Iraq occupation that we simply do not know the enemy and cannot bring together a large enough Iraqi coalition to stabilize the situations.
We've given Iran a huge win, Turkey a huge headache and the Saudis a place to send their al Qeada. Probably not a foreign policy Giuliani should campaign on. Let's get out of that country, be ready to smash any al Qaeda that resurfaces and finish the job in Afghanistan so the Republican party can live another day to fight for more tax cuts.
What if they're in Iran and Pakistan? Do you favor a cut and run from Iraq to go fight in those two countries?
Run like Reagan!
I'd like to redouble our efforts in Afghanistan, make that a better place than we found it, stabilize it and earn some good will in the world.
I'd want to see a post-US equilibrium in Iraq second.
I'd keep everything on the table with respect to Pakistan and Iran, but it seems like invading is silly at this point. (Unless we want to go get AQ Kahn to figure out where he sold the nuke secrets.)
So you support interventions in 'civil war' and nation building, just not in Iraq.
Fair enough.
Run like Reagan!
...in a specific country, and when al Qaeda considers said country to be the central front in its war against us, your solution is "get out of that country"? Just one question. Is your real name Juan Cole?
So al Qeada says they want Iraq? Tommy Franks send Iraq a fake copy of our battle plans before we invaded. Seems like we've been duped. If I were bin Laden I'd prefer the US in Iraq than the US in Afghanistan.
My bet is those little pugs al Qeada couldn't take Iraq if we paved the way for them. The shia will crush al Qeada when we leave.
...to listen to bin Laden's 1998 declaration of war against the U.S., and we all know how that turned out. Al Qaeda is involved in way more suicide terrorist attacks in Iraq than anywhere else, so why are you in favor of cutting and running from the country that our sworn enemy is most active in? If we leave too precitously, the hardline Shiite militias aren't going to limit their ethnic cleansing to al Qaeda militants. In Baghdad, they've already been targeting any Sunni who happens to be fighting-age male.
It must, however, be acknowledged that since 9/11 the bulk of suicide attacks have been carried out by Islamic groups, particularly the Al-Qaida. What distinguishes Islamic extremists from other terrorists is their belief that martyrdom will ensure rewards in the after life. Does that mean Islam is hardwired to produce suicide terrorists? Obviously not. What it means is that intolerant strains of Islam - be it Wahhabi or Salafi - are fuelling much of Islamic extremism.
From 2001 to 2004, University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape compiled data on 71 terrorists who killed themselves. Of these, over half were from Saudi Arabia. A recent LA Times report says nearly 50% cent of all foreign militants targeting US security forces and civilians in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
Many, many months ago, Rush Limbaugh started it all off with his rendition of "The Democrats OWN defeat in Iraq." Rush explained very well how the Dems were betting not only the next election but probably the very existence of their party on America's Surrender in the War In Iraq.
What has come about from that "battleplan" of the Dems has been several strategies of theirs to help ensure that defeat. And I am not talking about votes or speeches.
I'm talking about the strategy to do anything and everything to keep the presence and indeed, mention of "Al Qaeda" out of the Iraq War. They realized early on that the American people will commit to anything that destroys Al Qaeda.
The second strategy was to play up the term, "Civil War." This ties to the Al Qaeda denial as well, but it was determined by the Dems that a "civil war" would be viewed by Americans as "not our fight."
And finally, one of the last strategies of the Dems to try and realize their goal of American failure in Iraq, was the trips by Dems to Syria and Saudi Arabia. That strategy was timed to show Americans that the Dems had an answer of diplomacy, not warfare.
Now, I ask you. If you think back to World War 2, when American boys were being slaughtered on the beaches of Normandy, if 52 Senators had been executing a strategy for defeat of America vs. The Nazis and the Japanese, what do you think would have been the fate of those Senators?